MR. DHANAPALA AND CO., DO APOLOGISE

The best elements of the three Nikayas of the Maha Sangha, the Heads of the Jammaithul Ulema and the Chamber of Commerce mandarins, came together this week to announce the outcome of rational and reasonable negotiations on the Halal issue.

The bottom line of course is already well known. All parties agreed that the Halal logo has to go. It will be abruptly taken off all merchandise, but items that already have the mark on them will be allowed to stay in the market until they are sold out.

Now, apart from saying that this was done in the interests of religious harmony, there was a clear admission on the part of the Jamaithul Ulema that the Halal certification was not necessary, or strictly mandated as per religious edict.

If it was, these Muslim community elites including clergymen would certainly not have consented to the withdrawal of such certification, and this much was clear from what was stated at the press conference, and from what was said by various reputed Muslim clerics among whom were various Moulevis whose views on this matter were carried in this newspaper, for example.

In effect then the upshot of the agreement on withdrawing the Halal certification was that whether anybody likes it or not, Bodu Bala Sena was right. The priests of the three Nikayas that were present at the press conference on Halal certification have said that the BBS does not represent the Sangha, and that extremist elements exist in any religious group.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the BBS was fundamentally right on this issue, other matters notwithstanding. These persons have a right to free expression, and in the main what they said was accurate -- Halal certification was not necessary, and it was an uncalled for burden on the consumer and was unfairly foisted on the people, with all due respect to the Jamaithul Ulema which was the godfather of the Halal project.

It is therefore clear that 'extremists' too can be part of a constructive social project, though this does not mean that reasonable people including the regime endorses everything that the BBS does.

But the Halal issue is an object lesson on how all sectors of society should be engaged pro-actively rather than marginalized, vilified or shouted down. What was moreover, rather shocking, was the fact that the call to 'ban' or to - even worse - put BBS members behind bars, came from what are called the liberal and enlightened sectors of Sri Lankan society.

It is more than curious that those who most vociferously hold a brief for the freedom of expression, are the first to seek to stifle and suppress this right to free speech particularly when it concerns the freedoms of people that represent the majority community.

The BBS in the main, was vociferous, but peaceful in their protests. The charges of violence against them were trumped up. If there was 'intimidation' on the part of BBS members, it was confined to chasing a TV crew out of a meeting precincts which in this country, is, to say the least, a common or garden occurrence.

This is not to hold a brief for extremism, but before the 'extremist' label is appended to people, the issues should be looked at in perspective, and it is in this context that the BBS is owed an apology by the Jayantha Dhanapalas and other such 'liberal' elites, so called, in this country.

To some extent the BBS has succeeded in making sensitive issues public, and by doing so, staving off a situation that might have escalated to unmanageable levels. In simple terms, the continued application of the Halal principle to trade may have -- since the Halal certification itself was needless - led to more pronounced ethnic tensions.

Now, happily what was unnecessary has been acknowledged as unnecessary by all parties concerned, and we are close to saying Sri Lankans 'lived happily ever after'. Mr. Dhanapala and Co, the worst of our fears are imagined, and so, gracefully acknowledge a mistake, it wouldn't hurt now, would it? To err is human, incidentally didn't the Holy Prophet say that as well?